Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Santhini Devi K vs The Secretary Department Of Post New ... on 18 May, 2023
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00234/2021
C.P No.180/00025/2021
in
Original Application No.180/00234/2021
and
Original Application No.180/00417/2020
Thursday, this the 18th day of May, 2023
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice K Haripal, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. K. V. Eapen, Administrative Member
Original Application No.180/234/2021
Santhini Devi K.,
W/o. Anish Kumar R.,
Aged 33 years, working as Postal Assistant (U/S).,
Kozhencherry S.O., Pin - 689 641,
Residing at Vempinattu House, Parakkara P.O.,
Thattayil, Pathanamthitta.,
Pin - 691 525. - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. V. Sajithkumar)
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented by the
Secretary to Government,
Department of Posts,
Government of India, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
O/o. The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum - 695 001.
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
O/o. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Pathanamthitta Postal Division,
Pathanamthitta - 689 645. - Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. N. Anil Kumar, SPC)
O.A No.180/234/2021
and connected cases
2
C.P(C) No.180/25/2021
Santhini Devi K., W/o. Anish Kumar R.,
Aged 33 years, working as Postal Assistant (U/S).,
Kozhencherry S.O., Pin - 689 641,
Residing at Vempinattu House, Parakkara P.O.,
Thattayil, Pathanamthitta., Pin - 691 525. - Petitioner
(By Advocate: Mr. V. Sajithkumar)
VERSUS
Smt. Bindu Raj M.S., age and father‟s name not known to the petitioner,
The Superintendent of Post Offices,
O/o. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Pathanamthitta Postal Division,
Pathanamthitta - 689 645. - Respondent
(By Advocate: Mr. N. Anil Kumar, SPC)
Original Application No.180/417/2020
Santhini Devi K., W/o. Anish Kumar R.,
Aged 33 years, working as Postal Assistant (U/S).,
Kozhencherry S.O., Pin - 689 641,
Residing at Vempinattu House, Parakkara P.O.,
Thattayil, Pathanamthitta., Pin - 691 525. - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. V. Sajithkumar)
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented by the
Secretary to Government, Department of Posts,
Government of India, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
O/o. The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum - 695 001.
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
O/o. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Pathanamthitta Postal Division,
Pathanamthitta - 689 645. - Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. N. Anil Kumar, SPC)
These Original Applications and CP(C) having been heard on 6th April,
2023, the Tribunal on 18.05.2023 delivered the following: -
O.A No.180/234/2021
and connected cases
3
ORDER
Per: K. V. Eapen, Administrative Member The applicant, while working as Postal Assistant Kozhencherry MDG, was placed under suspension on 13.06.2020 pending initiation of departmental proceedings vide order dated 13.06.2020 issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta Division under Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. The order is produced at Annexure A7 in Original Application 234/2021. The order indicates that during the period that it shall remain in force, the headquarters of the applicant would be at Kozhencherry and that the applicant would not leave the headquarters without obtaining previous permission of the 3rd respondent. Further, it indicates that under the provisions contained in Fundamental Rule - 53 (FR 53), the payment of subsistence allowance was allowed, at an amount equal to the leave salary for half pay leave, to the applicant during the period under suspension.
2. The OA 234/2021 was filed in May 2021 by the applicant as she was aggrieved by the extension of suspension by the 3 rd respondent for a period of 180 days from 10.03.2021 to 05.09.2021 vide the impugned order at Annexure A1. Further she was also aggrieved by the refusal for the enhancement of her subsistence allowances by the respondents vide the impugned letter at Annexure A12. She also objected to the recommendation of the Suspension Review Committee in its meeting held on 23.02.2021 for extension of suspension, after the first Review of her case held on 03.09.2020 which had recommended extension of suspension from 11.09.2020 to 09.03.2021. The Committee had taken a decision to recommend to continue her suspension with effect from 10.03.2021 to 05.09.2021. The report of the Suspension Review Committee is produced at Annexure A14 as an impugned order. The O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 4 report had also apportioned a share of the fraud detected at Kulanada SO amounting to Rs.8,06,556/- plus interest plus penal interest, on the applicant. It has also been noted that, out of this amount, she had credited only a total amount of Rs.48,373/- under UCR and, hence, the balance amount yet to be credited by her was Rs.7,58,183/- plus interest plus penal interest.
3. When the OA was filed in May 2021, the relief prayed for by the applicant was to quash the impugned orders at Annexures A1, A12 and A14 described above and to reinstate the applicant to service with effect from 09.03.2021. Further, the O.A was filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to grant enhanced subsistence allowance in terms of FR 53 with effect from 11.09.2020, the date of expiry of three months from the date of the initial suspension order at Annexure A7. We are considering O.A 234/2021 along with the linked Contempt Petition CP 25/2021 as well as the O.A 417/2020 together for disposal. The O.A 417/2021 was separately filed by the applicant against the same respondents contesting the action being taken to initiate recovery proceedings against her for loss caused to the Department. She contended that this loss was caused by the action of MPKBY agent and there was no proper quantification prior to the fixation of liability on the co- offenders or subsidiary offenders in terms of extant instructions issued by the authorities. We will first take up O.A 234/2021 along with C.P 25/2021 for consideration.
O.A 234/2021 along with C.P 25/2021: -
4. As indicated above, the O.A 234/2021 has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the extension of suspension vide Annexure A1 order from 10.03.2021 to 05.09.2021. She has also prayed for an increase in the rate of subsistence allowance with effect from 11.09.2020, the date of expiry of three O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 5 months from the date of the initial suspension order against her at Annexure A7. At the outset, we note that as per the last minutes of the Suspension Review Committee held on 13.02.2022, produced by the respondents at Annexure MA 1 in M.A 180/204/2023 (to accept documents), the suspension of the applicant has been further recommended to be extended for a period of 180 days with effect from 28.02.2023 to 26.08.2023. What is relevant to be noted is that this recommendation of the Review Committee is the Sixth such review in the case. It has also been noted in the said minutes at Annexure MA1 that the first, second, third, fourth and fifth review of the case were held on 03.09.2020, 23.02.2021, 24.08.2021, 18.02.2022 and 17.08.2022 respectively. Thus, in effect, the respondents have placed the applicant under suspension with effect from 13.06.2020 and it is to go on at least to 26.08.2023, going by the Review Committee‟s recommendations in its meeting. Further, it also appears that there has been no variance ordered in the rate of suspension allowance being paid, ever since the initial order at Annexure A7 described earlier. We also note that the pleadings in this O.A are distinguished by a series of M.As, statements, objections, replies, rejoinders, etc., filed by both sides. Many of the averments made in the series of submissions are repetitive, not bringing to light any new facts or legal aspects for consideration. These have only extended the time taken for scrutiny.
5. Be that as it may and coming to the basic facts of the case, it is submitted by the applicant that, after entering into service with the respondents in 2010 as a Postal Assistant (PA), she was posted as Sub Postmaster (SPM) (officiating) at the Kulanada Sub Office (SO). This office falls under the Pathanamthitta Division of Kerala Postal Circle. She was posted as SPM there during the period between 05.01.2017 to 29.09.2018. She O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 6 was then posted as PA at the same Kulanada SO during the period between 29.09.2018 to 17.05.2019. She submits that Kulanada SO is a Class I Sub Office with a Sub-Postmaster (SPM), and three Postal Assistants (PA) and MPKBY agents, etc. It is submitted that the Sub Office was having a clerical workload of 29 hours, as per the last review, but was being managed only by 3 Postal Assistants. It is submitted that the requirement of filling the vacant posts was kept unanswered by the Divisional Office, in spite of various requests. It is submitted by the applicant that during her tenure at Kulanada S.O., she had noticed some irregularities in the transactions of one Smt. Ambily G. Nair, a MPKBY Agent attached to Kulanada S.O. She had brought the same to the notice of the then SPM, who in turn, reported the matter to the 3rd Respondent. It is submitted that the said Smt. Ambily G. Nair, MPKBY agent committed suicide on 25.03.2019 and that, immediately afterwards, her husband had submitted a complaint to the 3rd Respondent, Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta Division, with various facts, revealing the complicity of some persons in instigating the commission of crimes. In the complaint submitted by the husband there had been serious allegations made about the involvement of one Smt. Sindhu K. Nair, a PA at Kulanada SO, as well as some others including a retired Postal Assistant in the fraudulent transactions at Kulanada SO. The applicant submits that there were no allegations made against her in the said complaint.
6. The applicant submits that after she completed her tenure at Kulanada SO, she was transferred to Elavumthitta SO „on interest of service‟ vide order dated 15.05.2019. A preliminary investigation had been conducted by the 3rd respondent in response to the complaint of the husband of the late MPKBY agent. The investigation had revealed some loss to the Department. The O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 7 applicant was then given a letter, produced at Annexure A4 dated 26.06.2019, that the detailed inquiry conducted through the Investigating Squad had revealed that there was a clear case of negligence of service on her part in at least 8 transactions indicated in the letter while working as SPM (officiating) at Kulanada PO during the period from 05.01.2017 to 08.04.2019. There were lapses noticed on her part and, hence, the responsibility for the lapses had been fixed on her for the fraudulent transactions, which had taken place due to them. She was directed by the Annexure A4 letter dated 26.06.2019 to credit a sum of Rs.4,60,509/- plus interest under UCR and report the particulars within five days of receipt of the letter. The applicant then gave a detailed representation dated 04.07.2019, vide Annexure A5, to the 3rd respondent, Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta in which she sought to explain that the lapses that were alleged on her was done without giving her an opportunity to present and explain her case. She submitted vide the letter at Annexure A5 that she had had no role to play in any of these lapses. In effect, she submitted that she cannot be blamed for the lapses of other Postal Assistants in the Kulanada SO in matters like issuance of passbooks, improperly recording the transactions in the passbooks, etc. She submitted that the relevant instructions issued by the Department of Posts had entrusted the task of signature verification, disbursement of amount, etc. on the Postal Assistants. Further, she pointed out that the Department had had the option to make good the loss suffered by resorting to the provisions of the „PAD Act, 1850‟, which was applicable on MPKBY Agents as well. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent however did not respond to the Annexure A5 representation and the applicant was again transferred to Kozhencherry MDG "on interest of service". She joined at Kozhencherry on 07.12.2019. The applicant submits O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 8 that the Annexure A6 transfer order in her case issued on 15.11.2019, however makes it clear that she had been transferred to Kozhencherry with her „Finnacle ID‟ turned inactive for the smooth conduct of the departmental inquiry. Thus, she submits that she had been transferred to another SO, as per the DOPT instructions, and no action was taken by the respondents to suspend her at that time. However, while working as PA at Kozhencherry MDG, she was placed under suspension on 13.06.2020 vide the orders at Annexure A7 contemplating further disciplinary proceedings.
7. It is submitted by the applicant that the department meanwhile continued to put pressure on her to credit/return the amount demanded by the Annexure A4 letter issued to her. The applicant expressed her willingness to deposit her share of contributory negligence as a subsidiary offender after proper quantification through a known legal process. She submits that as an expression of her willingness she even deposited an amount of Rs.41,612/- on 24.06.2020. This was communicated to the 3rd Respondent but she was served with another letter dated 14.07.2020 produced at Annexure A8 demanding that she credit an amount of Rs.7,64,994/- which was now alleged to be her share in the fraud at Kulanada S.O. This letter issued by the 3rd respondent revealed that the inquiry conducted regarding the fraud at Kulanada SO had indicated that the total amount of loss came to Rs.35,55,127/-. The share of the applicant in the loss was worked out as Rs.8,06,556/- plus interest plus penal interest. Since she had already credited an amount of Rs.41,612/- under UCR on 26.06.2020, she was directed to credit the balance amount of Rs.7,64,944/-
along with interest and penal interest under UCR immediately. The applicant made a request to the 3rd Respondent to issue a copy of the quantification report in connection with the SB/RD fraud at Kulanada after she received this O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 9 letter. She was then given a list of doubtful transactions at the Post Office holding her responsible for 33% of the loss. She then submitted another representation to the 3rd Respondent on 14.08.2020 as per Annexure A8 expressing her willingness to credit her share of the loss, after proper quantification through a proper enquiry. She then filed O.A 417/2020, which will be considered later in this order.
8. O.A No.234/2021 has been filed by the applicant, as earlier indicated, objecting to her continued suspension as well as due to the non-enhancement of her subsistence allowance. The applicant submits that the respondents, while extending her suspension for a further period of 180 days from 11.09.2020 to 09.03.2021 vide Annexure A10, had ordered that the amount of subsistence allowance payable to her will be the same as the amount of subsistence allowance sanctioned in their first order dated 13.06.2020 produced at Annexure A7. Her contention is that her suspension has not been extended due to any reasons attributable to her, and thus, she is entitled to the 50% enhancement of subsistence allowance as provided under FR 53. She submitted a detailed representation, vide Annexure A11 dated 11.09.2020, in this regard to the 3rdRespondent to review the rate of subsistence allowance. However, the same was turned down by letter dated 28.09.2020 produced as the impugned order at Annexure A12. Further in September 2020 the Respondents attempted to initiate revenue recovery proceedings against the properties of her parents to recover the loss due to the department. She submits that this was done without any basis or evidence to prove that she was having any right in such property. The notice of revenue recovery dated 17.09.2020 was challenged by the parents of the applicant before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No. 20218/2020. The Hon'ble High Court passed an O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 10 interim order staying the revenue recovery proceedings against the properties owned by the parents and grandparents of the applicant and it is submitted that the interim order is still in force.
9. It is the contention of the applicant that her suspension is being continued and extended without any material/evidence warranting the same. It is submitted by her that she had been transferred to the Kozhencherry SO in November 2019 in terms of the directions of the Circle Level Committee. She submits that the suspension order issued on her 6 months after transferring her to another office was unwarranted and illegal. Consolidated instructions on „Suspension‟ have been published by the Ministry of Personnel, Pensions and Public Grievances, Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) in the year 2014. These circulars contain the instructions of the Government in the matter of suspending a government servant and have details regarding the procedures to be adhered to by the authorities after placing the official under suspension. A copy of these instructions dated 02.01.2014 issued by the DoP&T are produced at Annexure A13. The applicant submits that she had been issued a charge memorandum on 08.09.2020, but that no further steps were taken by the respondents to proceed with the inquiry. She was continuing under suspension, awaiting the response of the Respondents to her claim for enhancement of subsistence allowance. The minutes of the Suspension Review Committee, produced by her at Annexure A14 as an impugned order, by which her suspension was recommended to be extended for a further period of 180 days with effect from 10.03.2021 to 05.09.2021 do not reveal any of the relevant factors justifying the extension of suspension. Further, it has been indicated therein that the apportion of the fraud committed at Kulanada PO yet to be credited by her is Rs.7,58,183/- plus interest plus penal interest. The O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 11 Review Committee, after consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, have recommended continuation of suspension. It is contended that such a decision by the Committee for Review of Suspension is arbitrary, as there is no case that her reinstatement will affect the impartial inquiry. The justification that has been brought out in Annexure A14 is only to the effect that she had not credited the amount demanded of her. In this regard she contends that this amount has been arrived at without proper inquiry and quantification. It is submitted that as per the DoP&T instructions at Annexure A13 suspension cannot be used as a tool to extort money from the applicant. Thus the Annexure A1 order of extension of the suspension by the respondents is without any reason and in violation of the Annexure A13 instructions as well as the judgments of the Hon‟ble Courts in a catena of cases.
10. It is also further contended that the extension of Suspension by the Committee, without an enhancement of subsistence allowance by another 50% in terms of FR 53, is also illegal and unfair on many other grounds. The applicant submits that as per FR 53 a government servant is entitled to an enhancement in his/her subsistence allowance by a suitable amount, not exceeding 50 per cent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of first three months, if the period of suspension is again prolonged for reasons not directly attributable to such official. In Mahabir Prasad Yadav v Lakshmibhai College, WP(C) No.13811/2019 (MANU/DE/1431/2020), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had directed the enhancement of subsistence allowance from 50% to 75% by quashing the decision to maintain status quo as regards the subsistence allowance of the Petitioner therein. It is submitted that in the instant case suspension has been prolonged only due to the inaction O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 12 on the part of the Department to conclude the Inquiry in a time bound manner. Therefore, the denial of enhancement of subsistence allowance to the Applicant in terms of FR 53(1)(ii)(a)(i) is illegal.
11. It is also contended that the Annexure A13 instructions referred to earlier indicate that an employee must be placed under suspension only in such cases where he can prejudice the investigation, trial or any inquiry, where the continuance in office is likely to seriously subvert discipline in the office, where the continuance in office will be against the wider public interest, such as where there is a public scandal and it is necessary to place the Government servant under suspension to demonstrate the policy of the Government is to deal strictly with officers involved in such scandals or when there is a prima facie case made out which would justify his prosecution or being proceeded against in departmental proceedings and where the proceedings are likely to end in his conviction and/or dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service. It is submitted by the applicant that none of the above circumstances are applicable in the instant case as the applicant had already been transferred to Kozhencherry SO and even her Finnacle Id was made inactive. In addition, even the charge sheet served on her only has allegations about supervisory lapses. Thus she should not be placed under suspension for the misdemeanour of one Smt. Sindhu K Nair, who was the counter PA, who may have been complicit in the fraud.
12. It is further submitted that the O.M of DoP&T dated 07.01.2004 also indicates that the Review Committee should take a view regarding the revocation/continuation of the suspension keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account that putting the employee under unduly long suspension will create undue hardship, involve O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 13 payment of subsistence allowance without the employee performing any useful service to the Government, etc. She submits that the Department can always resort to Rule 106 and Rule 107 of the Postal Manual, Volume III to recover the loss from the government official. Even as per Rule 204 A of the Postal Manual, Volume III, the department could always resort to recovery proceedings to recover the loss from the delinquent official, after quantification of loss through known legal process. The present attempt of the respondents to extort money from her in spite of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and also her challenging the illegal recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents is thus highly illegal and unjust. The Review Committee had recommended the extension of her suspension in Annexure A14 on the ground that she has not paid the remaining amount devolved upon her of the alleged loss suffered by the department. This is not a justification to prolong her suspension without any proper reasons. The Respondents can always resort to recovery from pay for the proportional liability of the loss, if any, suffered by the department after proper quantification through a departmental inquiry. It is submitted that she has been made a co-offender and also asked to repay the alleged loss without following the proper legal process. She also submits that, as per the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules as well as the instructions dated 02.01.2004 issued by the DoP&T, the competent authority should have first considered the feasibility of transferring her rather than placing her under suspension. The only concern in these instructions is that the employee should not have an opportunity to repeat the misconduct or hamper the investigations.
13. It is submitted by the applicant that the above view has also been endorsed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 14 India, (2015 (7) SCC 291), wherein, the Hon‟ble Apex Court had observed in paragraph 12 as follows: -
"Protracted periods of suspension, repeated renewal thereof, have regrettably become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be. The suspended person suffering the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn of society and the derision of his Department, has to endure this excruciation even before he is formally charged with some misdemeanour, indiscretion or offence. His torment is his knowledge that if and when charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination, that is, to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much too often this has now become an accompaniment to retirement..."
Further in paragraph 17 of this judgment it was also observed that the legal expectation of expedition and diligence being present at every stage of a criminal trial and a fortiori in departmental inquiries had been emphasised by the Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay v R.S. Nayak [1992 (1) SCC 225], which underscored that the right to speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution and is also reflected in Section 309 of the Cr.P.C., 1973; that it encompasses all stages, viz., investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re-trial. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court had directed therefore in light of these considerations that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet was not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet was served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. However, the applicant submits that, while in terms of Ajay Kumar Choudhary(supra), a chargesheet may have been served, no further steps have been taken by the respondents to proceed with the inquiry and no proper reasoned orders have been given for extension of her suspension from time to time.
O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 15
14. The respondents initially filed a reply statement in July 2021 against the interim relief sought for by the applicant, which was to reinstate her to service with immediate effect and to direct them to disburse the subsistence allowance at the enhanced rate with effect from 11.09.2020, the date of expiry of Annexure A7 suspension order. After a rejoinder was filed by the applicant against the contentions in the reply statement, this Tribunal after due consideration of the matter delivered interim directions on 23.09.2021. In the interim order nothing was found unwarranted calling for interference with the action taken by the Department under the Rules for extension of suspension period. Further, in relation to the plea for enhancement of subsistence allowance, this Tribunal took due notice of the judgment of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in Mahabir Prasad Yadav(supra). It was noted that the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi had not given a specific direction therein in its judgment to enhance the said subsistence allowance but had only directed the respondents to take a decision in the light of FR 53, after examining the issue in accordance with law. Further the interim order of the Tribunal noted that the proviso in FR 53 (1) (ii) (a) had only outlines the „competence‟ of the authority for „varying‟ the subsistence allowance by an increase after a period of three months if, in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension had been prolonged for reasons to be recorded in writing not directly attributable to the employee. It was also noted in the interim order that this Tribunal in another matter in O.A.No.180/00134/2016 decided on 16.03.2021 had concluded that the said provisions under FR 53 (1)(ii)(a) does not clearly stipulate that the subsistence allowance must be varied on completion of the first three months of suspension. The Tribunal had not allowed the O.A No.180/00134/2016, wherein the applicant after O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 16 being suspended on 08.10.2009 had been given an enhanced subsistence allowance only after a period of 15 months and where it was claimed that this was a violation of the above referred statutory provisions under FR 53. Hence, through these considerations the interim order dated 23.09.2021 of this Tribunal in the matter of the present applicant in this O.A, taking in light the directions issued in the judgment of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi, only directed the competent authority under the respondents to examine the request of the applicant for enhancement in the rate of subsistence allowance in the light of the provisions of FR 53 and other executive instructions applicable. The respondents were directed to take a considered decision in the matter by passing a specific order in this regard. It was also ordered in the interim order dated 23.09.2021 that the order would be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The respondents then passed an order rejecting the request made by the applicant.
15. Subsequent to the passing of the interim order on 23.09.2021 by this Tribunal, the applicant filed the Contempt Petition [CP(C) No.25/2021] in November 2021 which is under consideration in this order. This Petition alleged that the respondents had issued an order rejecting the request of the applicant for disbursement of enhanced subsistence allowance through a cryptic order without considering any of the directions/observations of this Tribunal. It was alleged that this has mocked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. A copy of the order passed by the Contempt Respondents was produced at Annexure P3 in CP(C) No.25/2021. It was submitted that Annexure P3 was a gross contempt of this Tribunal punishable under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunal Act and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act as the respondents had not complied with the directions in the interin order dated O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 17 23.09.2021. The respondents in March 2022 then filed a statement in the CP submitting that the Tribunal had only directed them, in its interim order dated 23.09.2021, to examine the request of the applicant for enhancement in the rate of subsistence allowance in the light of provisions of FR53 and other executive instructions applicable and to take a considered decision in the matter by passing a specific order in this regard. It had also been directed by the Tribunal to pass the said order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. After a copy of this order was received on 30.09.2021 from the office of the 2nd respondent, Chief Post Master General, Trivandrum, the 3rd respondent Superintendent of Post Offices Pathanamthitta Division had examined the request of the applicant in light of the provisions of FR 53 and other executive instructions applicable. It was decided that the amount of subsistence allowance payable to the applicant would remain the same as the amount of subsistence allowance sanctioned vide office memo dated 13.06.2020. This order dated 25.10.20231, produced at Annexure P3, was then sent to the applicant. After considering the above contentions carefully, we find that the respondents have taken the necessary steps as directed in our interim order dated 23.09.2021. Hence no contempt is made out and the C.P 25/2021 is dismissed.
16. In addition to the Contempt Petition above, the applicant also filed an M.A No.180/437/2022 under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Rule 8(3) of the Central Administrative Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1987 asking for a direction to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the deponent, Smt. Bindu Raj MS, Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta Division. It was submitted that the deponent (respondent) Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta had O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 18 filed a statement against the interim relief prayer made by the applicant which contained certain false and dishonest statements knowing fully well that such averments are incorrect and were only to implicate the applicant and to take advantage of the pending judicial proceedings. It was submitted in the M.A 180/437/2022 that making such false and dishonest statements before a Court of law amounts to perjury and that persons making use of such false and dishonest statements are liable to be proceeded under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The specific contentions in the M.A were that the averments in paragraphs 6, 10, 11 and 12 of the reply statement filed in July 2021 by the respondents against the prayer for interim relief made by the applicant had been made knowing fully well that the same were false. It was contended that the intention was to use the same against the applicant in the pending judicial proceedings, making the respondent liable to be prosecuted under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Moreover, since false evidence was furnished in the pending judicial proceedings to be used against the applicant in the pending litigation before this Tribunal, the Deponent (3rd respondent) had also committed offences punishable under Section 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code as well. Hence, it was prayed that the Tribunal pass orders to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the Deponent (Smt. Bindu Raj M.S, Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathananthitta Postal Division) for false and dishonest statements in the verified statement filed before this Tribunal. In this connection the applicant submitted that the contention made in the statement filed against the interim order by the respondent, that the applicant had allowed certain withdrawal transactions using her own Finacle counter ID, which was verified using her Supervisor ID was a dishonest and false O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 19 statement with an intention to discredit her character. Further it was submitted that even a cursory glance at the layout of the Kulanada Post Office would establish that the Sub Post Master (SPM) cannot see the persons entering into the room of the Counter Clerk/PA. The Counter Clerk at relevant time was one Smt. Ganga Gopalan and she was the one who had allowed Smt. Sindu K. Nair to do the transactions and it was not the applicant who had done so. Further, the averment at paragraph 11 of the respondent‟s statement that there were discrepancies in Passbooks was wrong, as there was no discrepancy in the stock of Pass Books. In fact the inspecting officers had certified the correctness of the stock of blank Pass Books. In addition another averment at paragraph 12 of the Statement that the applicant had committed fraud and the same can be repeated if she was allowed to re-enter service was also incorrect, defamatory and mischievous.
17. The contentions made in M.A No.180/437/2021 by the applicant were wrongly opposed and objected to by the Respondents in their response. It was submitted that all the averments in the said Statement filed before this Tribunal by the respondent in response to the prayer for interim relief were true to the best knowledge of the respondents. The averments were based on what had been revealed in the Departmental investigation conducted by a team of officers of Department of Posts, as well as in the Divisional Level Investigation conducted by 3rd respondent in the said Kulanada Sub Post Office fraud case. Thus the allegations made in the M.A 180/437/2021 against the 3rd respondent were strongly denied. The respondents had filed the statement against the interim relief sought, along with the additional statement in July 2021, on the basis of records of depositions made by the officials who had committed irregularities at Kulanada, the depositions of depositors who O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 20 were defrauded and also taking in view the investigation reports in connection with Kulanada fraud case, including the Divisional Level Investigation Report. The allegation of the applicant that the 3rd respondent had made false and dishonest statements in the judicial proceedings providing cause to invoke Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure was objected to. All the allegations in the M.A 180/437/2021 filed by the applicant were countered by the respondents by an objection, containing documents produced at Annexure R3 and Annexure R4. It was contended that the series of printouts of the Finance Statements produced at Annexure R3, proved that the applicant had shared her ID with other officials and that the same had been used for various fraudulent transactions by using her user ID and password. Similarly, all other allegations made by the applicant in the M.A 180/437/2021 in relation to the discrepancies in the stock register of Pass Books maintained at Kulanada Post Office had been proven by the inspection report that the same had not been maintained properly. It was submitted that the Passbooks of the fake KVP account opened at Kulanada PO showed the date/stamp impression of Kulanada, which was clear evidence to confirm that the Passbooks belonged to the Kulanada PO. It was submitted that the case mainly involved withdrawals and payment of closure amounts in certain RD accounts to unauthorised persons other than the depositors. At the Post Office it was only the Sub Postmaster and Postal Assistant who were authorised to do Savings Bank transactions with the public. It was not possible to close a RD account or withdraw any amount from the RD accounts standing open at Kulanada Post Office without their knowledge. Hence in these circumstances it was prayed that the M.A 180/437/2021 be dismissed.
O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 21
18. The applicant, however, filed a rejoinder to the above objection filed by the respondents, justifying the contentions made by her in M.A 180/437/2021. We have carefully considered all the contentions made. After taking into account the available material in the objection to the M.A filed by the respondents, detailed reply statement filed later in August 2021 in the O.A, the statements for the grant of interim relief, additional statement of the respondents, rejoinders by the applicant, etc., on the basis of the available material on record we do not find that a case has been made to initiate proceedings against the 3rd respondent under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The M.A 180/437/2021 for this direction is accordingly dismissed. We also place on record that attempts to browbeat officials of the Postal Department by filing such MAs making allegations against them on a personal basis without sufficient cause are to be deplored. We observe that the details which have been produced by the 3rd respondent in her objection underlie that there were clearly valid/acceptable grounds, prima- facie, behind the averments made in the statement. Therefore, to use the said statement as a reason for a plea to initiate procedures under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against a respondent is misplaced and to be deprecated. We have rarely, if not never, come across use of such procedures before this Tribunal.
19. Having dealt with the C.P(C) 25/2021 and M.A 180/437/2021, we now return to the averments in the O.A by taking up the formal reply statement filed by the respondents. It is submitted by the respondents that the applicant had worked as an officiating Sub Postmaster (SPM)/PA at Kulanada Post Office during the period from 05.01.2017 to 28.09.2018 and then as Postal Assistant (PA) during the period from 29.09.2018 to 17.05.2019. It is O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 22 submitted that some suspected misappropriation cases were reported by the successor Sub Postmaster to the applicant at the Kulanada Post Office on 12.03.2019. These were identified in connection with one MIS account and 4 RD accounts. A preliminary inquiry was then done by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta Sub Division. The report had found that there was misappropriation and fraud at the Kulanada Post Office. It was noted that, during the period of misappropriation and fraud from 13.04.2015 to 07.02.2019, the applicant had worked as the officiating Sub Postmaster or as Postal Assistant at Kulanada Post Office. It is submitted by the respondents that the applicant is one of the 6 Principal Offenders identified in the Kulanada Post Office fraud. The total loss detected along with interest and penal interest was initially worked out as Rs.35,55,127/-. Out of which the apportioned amount of loss quantified due to mistakes of the applicant was calculated as Rs.8,06,556/-.
20. The respondents submit that the modus operandi of the fraud committed by the applicant as SPM, Kulanada PO, as revealed by their investigation, was as follows: -
(a) The applicant had sanctioned withdrawal and closure of RD accounts, without verifying the signature of the depositors in the withdrawal/closure forms with the specimen signature as per PO records. She permitted the Postal Assistant to effect payment to unauthorised persons without the knowledge of the depositors and, thereby, violated the concerned Rules of Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume I.
(b) She had shared her Supervisor FINACLE ID and secret password with the counter PA. She permitted the Counter PA to perform her duties of verification of transactions that were entered by Counter PA. She, thereby, O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 23 violated Paragraph 1 of Directorate letter dated 21.03.2016, circulated vide SB Order No.5/2016.
(c) In many cases in the FINACLE records, withdrawal transactions from RD accounts were seen to have been entered and made by the applicant using her own FINACLE counter ID. The said transactions were also seen „verified‟ by the applicant herself using her FINACLE Supervisor ID. The said amount was then handed over to unauthorised persons without the knowledge or consent of the actual depositor. The applicant, thereby, had cheated the members of Public and Government of India.
(d) The applicant, in connivance with the Counter PA, had allowed the Counter PA to effect payment of interim withdrawal amount/closure amount to unauthorised persons and to the MPKBY agent without the knowledge of the depositors and, thereby, cheated the members of Public.
(e) The applicant had allowed the opening of SB accounts in the name of RD depositors without the knowledge of the depositors and had allowed the MPKBY agent to do withdrawal/closure of RD accounts using those SB accounts, without the knowledge of the depositors and, thereby, cheated the members of Public.
(f) While working as the officiating SPM for the period from 05.01.2017 to 28.09.2018, maintaining the stock register for Passbooks was the direct responsibility of the applicant as per Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume I. However, the Passbook stock register was maintained by her and there was manipulation of stock and some passbooks were issued without any entry into the stock register. These Passbooks issued without entry in the stock register were then delivered to the depositors with fake account Nos and O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 24 deposit entries, with date stamp impressions of Kulanada PO, without crediting the entered deposit amounts to Post Office Accounts.
(g) The applicant had permitted unauthorised persons to enter into the Post Office and allowed them to do SB counter transactions using the FINACLE ID of the then Counter PA thereby causing huge financial loss to the Department as well as to the members of Public and Government of India.
21. It is submitted that the above lapses as well as actions in connivance with Counter Postal Assistants and the MPKBY agent, late Smt. Ambili G Nair, had caused financial loss to the Department. The apportioned amount of quantification calculated as due from the applicant was Rs.8,06,556/-, plus interest, plus penal interest. Hence, she had been placed under suspension vide order issued by the 3rd respondent dated 13.06.2020. In addition a Police case dated 18.09.2020 was registered against her at the Pandalam Police Station. It is submitted that in order to settle the claims of public and also to compensate the loss incurred by the Government of India, it was essential on part of the respondents to get the loss amount credited from the erring officials and the agent. Since the applicant had already credited Rs.41,612/- under UCR at Kozhencherry Sub Post Office on 24.06.2020, after quantification the 3rd respondent requested the applicant to credit the balance apportioned loss amount on her with effect from 01.07.2020 of Rs.7,64,944/- along with interest and penal interest.
22. The respondents have submitted that the first Suspension Review Committee meeting regarding the applicant was held at Office of the CPMG, Kerala Circle on 03.09.2020 to review the continuation of her suspension. The Committee recommended her continued suspension for another 180 days with effect from 11.09.2020 to 09.03.2021. The issue of subsistence allowance O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 25 payable was also reviewed. It was decided that there would be no change in the same from what had been ordered in the initial suspension memo dated 13.06.2020. Similarly, the second suspension review was held on 23.02.2021 by the Suspension Review Committee and the suspension was extended for another 180 days with effect from 10.03.2021 to 05.09.2021. A Charge Memorandum under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules1965 was issued against the applicant vide the 3rd Respondent‟s Memo dated 08.09.2020. Hence, it is submitted that the Charge Memorandum had been issued within the time limits, as per the DoP&T directions following the Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) case. The official supervisor who was appointed as Inquiry Officer had held a sitting on 11.02.2021 at the Adoor Head Post Office for conducting the Rule 14 Inquiry. However later due to his promotion, the Inquiry Officer had to be changed. Smt. Jayarani, ASP, RMS TV Division was then nominated as the functioning Inquiry Authority on 15.03.2021 to continue the Disciplinary Proceedings. The Inquiry Authority had served notice to the applicant intimating that the second sitting would be held on 29.04.2021 at Adoor Kerala HPO. However, the Charged Officer (the Applicant) informed her that the Defence Assistant appointed by her had expressed his inability to attend on account of prevailing travel restrictions in connection with the Covid 19 protocol of the Government. Thus the sitting dated 29.04.2021 had to be postponed. Similarly the next sitting fixed on 28.05.2021 could also not be held as the State Government had extended the lockdown through the State upto 30.05.2021.
23. It is submitted by the respondents that, as per sub rule 6 of the Rule 10 of CCS (CCA Rules), 1965, an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this Rule has to be reviewed by the authority, which is O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 26 competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension on the recommendation of review committee constituted for the purpose and then pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Any subsequent review shall also be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. The extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding 180 days at a time. It is submitted that the Annexure A1 impugned order is in accordance with CCS (CCA) Rules. Further unlike what has been put forth by the applicant regarding the workload of Kulanada Post Office, it is submitted that the workload as per the latest measure was 23 hours 12 minutes, which could have been managed by the available staff. In any case it is submitted that the staff shortage cannot be a reason for non- compliance of departmental rules and instructions by the applicant or for fraud.
24. It is submitted by the respondents that the said misappropriation was detected in as many as 40 accounts during the period served by the applicant. It is submitted that the Applicant is trying to justify this misappropriation in 40 accounts by taking the excuse of staff shortage as a shield. After inquiries were commenced by the inspecting squad on the basis of the first twelve interim reports, the office of the 3rd respondent had settled the claims of the depositors and members of the public, as there was a huge demand as many complaints were received. The 3rd respondent had requested the applicant to credit her share of loss amount vide letter dated 26.06.2019, on the basis of these first inspection reports. However, the applicant did not comply with the request in the letter. After one year, she voluntarily credited only Rs.41,612/- on 26.06.2020. The letter at Annexure A4 was issued to her at that time to credit the loss amount of Rs.4,60,500/- plus interest. Now, the revised O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 27 apportioned loss amount has been quantified for the applicant as Rs.8,06,556/- plus interest and penal interest with effect from 01.07.2020. The respondents submit that the applicant has not made good this loss. She only gave a reply trying to justify her role without any concrete proof. It is submitted that all these attempts are nothing but measures to beat around the bush to cover her failure to comply with the rules and procedures. The entire loss had been judiciously apportioned among all the offenders in Kulanada fraud including the applicant, other Postal Assistants and the MPKBY agent. This was done after considering all the facts and circumstances, the involvement of Post Office staff and the MPKBY agent in each case separately. The share of quantification was then fixed and a copy of the statement was also delivered to the applicant as per her request.
25. It is also submitted by the respondents that the applicant herself is one of the principal offenders. Unlike what she is contending there has been no effort to favour any of the offenders in the case by the respondents. Revenue recovery has also been initiated against all the principal offenders, except the late MPKBY agent as her husband had credited the apportioned amount on her. Thus, similar action is being taken against all the responsible Postal employees who have been identified as Principal offenders, which includes the applicant. All concerned are liable to make good the loss and credit the amount apportioned. Moreover, the Department is also empowered to initiate recovery proceedings to make good the loss sustained by it through recovery from the immovable properties in the name of delinquent postal employees and their family members. The details regarding quantification of loss and what has been apportioned to the applicant have been produced as Annexure R7. It is evident from this that the loss amount apportioned to the applicant is O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 28 based on the amount of misappropriation in various Savings Bank Accounts at the Kulanada Post Office, while the applicant was working as SPM/PA.
26. It is further submitted by the respondents that, under Rule 10 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965, the Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the Disciplinary Authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President by general or special order may place a government servant under suspension, where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending. In the case of the Applicant the charge sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules has been issued. The Disciplinary proceedings against the applicant have been initiated and are pending. Her suspension is justified on the basis of these Rules. Further, it is submitted that all the guidelines in Annexure A13 have been strictly followed by the respondents. It is reiterated that the applicant is one of the principal offenders in the Kulanada fraud case as revealed in the Divisional level investigation by the Department. It is submitted by the details provided in the reply statement that not only was the applicant involved in the misappropriation of money but that she had also committed serious dereliction of duty and negligence resulting in considerable loss to the Government. It is submitted by the respondents that the applicant had in connivance with the Counter PA and the MPKBY agent cheated the depositors. Her apportioned amount of quantification calculated so far was Rs.8,06,556/-. Among the 37 RD cases it was seen that there were 20 withdrawal transactions and 17 closure transactions. In all these 37 cases the applicant had not complied with the requirements of the rules of the Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume I, before allowing the said withdrawal/closure. This had resulted in irregular withdrawals and payments of the withdrawal amounts to persons other than O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 29 the actual depositors without the knowledge of the actual depositors and also without obtaining signature for the payment from the actual depositor. As earlier noted, in some of the cases cited, both the counter transactions and supervisory transactions were seen to be done by use of the personal FINACLE COUNTER ID as well as Supervisory ID of the applicant using her own password which is to be kept only with her.
27. It is submitted that a major part of the misappropriation had been committed when the applicant worked as Sub Postmaster. The applicant even allowed the Postal Assistant, Smt. Sindhu K Nair, who was on child care leave during that period, to perform Savings Bank Counter duties while she was the PA, Pandalam. She had allowed several interim withdrawals and closures of RD accounts. It is submitted that the applicant had issued fresh passbooks from the stock, without making valid entries in the stock register and had got them delivered to the agent. It is thus submitted that since a fraud has been committed by the Applicant violating the codal rules of the Department, the same can be repeated if the applicant is allowed to re-enter in service. The suspension of the Applicant till the disposal of the disciplinary proceedings is, therefore, needed to be continued due to this and other similar reasons. There is every chance of the applicant misusing and fabricating evidence since she is familiar with the Recurring Deposit Accounts and procedures to handle the same. It is submitted that considering all these aspects and also considering the fact that she had not remitted the apportioned loss amount of Rs. 8,06,556/- plus interest plus penal interest, the suspension order in her case is being extended during the pendency of Rule 14 inquiry. The suspension order had been issued based on Rule 10 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 after considering the seriousness of the possibility of tampering with evidence and because of O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 30 the unauthorized sharing of her Finacle User IDs with others. The other considerations included the matter of permitting Smt. Sindhu K Nair to perform Savings Bank Counter duties while she was PA, Pandalam and under child care leave, violating various codal rules of the Department.
28. It is also submitted by the respondents that the Inquiry Authority has taken steps to conduct the inquiry properly. However, because of various factors brought out earlier, the Inquiry Authority (IA) submitted a letter to the higher authorities requesting for more time to complete the inquiry proceedings, as contemplated by Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It is submitted that the disciplinary authority has granted 6 months additional time to complete the inquiry proceedings. The extension of time was issued by 3rd respondent vide Annexure R2. It is also brought to the notice of this Tribunal that the Inquiry Authority had been appointed on 25.11.2020 and that not much time had been taken till the filing of the reply statement by the respondents. It is submitted that the six months period was over only on 22.05.2021. The extension time sought is for the reasons stated earlier including non-cooperation by the applicant. It is submitted that the inquiry has to be completed as per Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 within the stipulated time and that the suspension of the applicant has to be continued till the final outcome of the proceedings. Further in addition to the above points made in the reply statement, the respondents have in their reply to the contempt petition filed by the applicant submitted that the defence assistant appointed by the applicant had prolonged the Inquiry by deciding not to attend the Inquiry even though all others were present. Further, the applicant had filed a bias petition on the Inquiry Authority as well. The Defence Assistant had intimated the Inquiry Authority about his inability to attend the sitting on O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 31 29.04.2021. On 28.05.2021 he could not attend for some reasons including the prevailing lockdown. Further, the applicant had submitted a request for 28 additional documents vide her letter dated 09.07.2021. The analysis of the relevance of the requested documents and their collection and consolidation was a very time consuming and tedious job. The available documents were finally forwarded to Inquiring Authority on 23.08.2021. The applicant then submitted another request for 4 more additional documents vide her letter dated 29.09.2021. These documents were forwarded to IA on 26.10.2021. It is submitted that the repeated requests of the delinquent employee seeking a large number of additional documents have also prolonged the inquiry proceedings.
29. In relation to the request of the applicant to enhance the rate of subsistence allowance it is submitted by the respondents that, as directed by the interim order of this Tribunal and in the light of provisions of FR 53 and other executive instructions, the respondents have taken a lenient view even though the progress of the Inquiry had been delayed by the actions of the applicant. They had decided that the subsistence allowance payable to the applicant will remain the same. There was no scope for any enhancement due to the delay which can be directly attributable to the delinquent employee. The charge sheet had been issued on 08.09.2020 and the Inquiry Authority appointed on 25.11.2020. However by March 2022, 17 months had elapsed but the Inquiry was only at the stage of verification of documents. It is alleged by the respondents that the applicant is adopting all types of tactics to delay the conduct of the inquiry proceedings. Thus, in spite of the spate of Miscellaneous Applications filed by the applicant asking for the suspension to be revoked, the respondents, having reconsidered all the facts and O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 32 circumstances of the case, have recommended continuing suspension. The applicant has deliberately delayed the inquiry initiated against her unlike what has been submitted by her. She even moved an application against the Inquiry Authority on the ground of bias. These are reasons directly attributable to the official, causing the delay. Thus, the competent authority decided not to change the quantum of subsistence allowance payable to the applicant.
30. The applicant has strongly contested the above contentions of the respondents. It is submitted by her that the decision taken by the Suspension Review Committee on 18.02.2022 to extend the suspension up to 31.08.2022 on the premise that some cases have been registered by the defrauded depositors before the Elavumthitta Police Station is not correct. The applicant was only a witness in one of the cases and had never been arrayed as an accused in any of the FIRs registered at the instance of the defrauded depositors. Apart from this, the applicant had been placed under suspension only on the premise of the proposed disciplinary proceedings and not in connection with the registration of any crime. Hence, the respondents have no justification in relying on the pendency of some crimes registered at some police stations, to prolong the suspension of the applicant without any valid reason. No other ground had been stated in the Annexure A7 order placing her under suspension. Therefore, the reason taken by the Suspension Review Committee, that the suspension has been extended due to the pendency of complaint before Pandalam Police Station, is absolutely unjustified. Furthermore, the Applicant is not an accused in any of the crimes related to the issue but was only a witness. She had given many representations pointing out the illegality in extending her suspension for such extraneous reasons. This was brought out in M.A No. 180/653/2022 filed by her for direction to the O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 33 respondents to review her continued suspension. She had enclosed Annexure MA3 dated 16.08.2022 in that MA, which was a representation to the 2nd respondent CPMG, Kerala wherein she had undertaken to make good any loss through known process of law. It is submitted that such attempts to prolong her suspension without valid reasons are not legal. It is therefore prayed that this Tribunal may direct the respondents to review the suspension of the applicant on merit, in accordance with departmental instructions, in all subsequent reviews of the Suspension Review Committee.
31. In addition, the applicant filed another M.A No.180/941/2023 in which she has brought out the sequence of the events of the entire case. She submits that this sequence of events would reveal that she has been mistreated by the Department and that her suspension is being illegally extended by giving improper reasons every 6 months. In fact the respondents are fishing for reasons to keep her out of office in spite of the lack of valid reasons. The applicant had been issued with an order extending her suspension from 01.09.2022 to 27.02.2023 on 22.08.2022 with absolutely incorrect and baseless allegations which were not indicated at the time of her initial suspension. This order issued by the respondents along with minutes of the Suspension Review Committee has been produced at Annexures A16 and A17. It is submitted that the SHO, Pandalam had after detailed investigation submitted a charge sheet before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court. The same is pending trial as CC-1248/2021. The SHO had stated that the applicant was only a prosecution witness No.6 in the above case and in fact is a crucial and important witness in the matter. This is clearly indicated in the letter produced by the applicant along with her MA at Annexure A18. Further on 18.12.2021 the Inspector of Police, Pandalam had also submitted a detailed O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 34 report to the District Police Chief in connection with the RD fraud at Kulananda. The Inspector of Police, after considering all the allegations levelled by the department against the applicant had found that there were only supervisory lapses on her part in the RD fraud and that she was most important prosecution witness in the criminal cases pending against the deceased Smt. Ambily G. Nair and Smt. Sindhu K. Nair. After an examination of all records the Inspector of Police had found that there were no circumstances warranting the registration of a case on the petition submitted by the department and that there were only supervisory lapses on her part. The copy of the letter submitted by the Inspector of Police Pandalam dated 18.12.2021 to the District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta has been produced by the applicant in the M.A filed at Annexure A19.
32. It is submitted by the applicant that the above letters of the Police Department at Annexures A18 and A19, which were written by the Investigating Officers and produced in M.A No.180/941/2022 clearly bring out the illegal, arbitrary, prejudicial and vengeful attitude of the respondents towards the applicant as revealed by their action taken for extending her suspension, without valid reasons, by Annexure A16 and Annexure A17. They have done this only because she had found out and reported the fraud committed by the agent at the relevant time and had requested a proper investigation. Even though the said Smt. Sindhu K. Nair, Counter Clerk, had been arrested by the police in connection with the Kulanada fraud and the applicant was only the star witness in that matter, it still appears that the Department is fixated on implicating her as well in order to save its face and also to protect the actual culprits by demoralizing her. It is submitted that the Suspension Review Committee is relying on the pendency of a petition by the O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 35 Department to recommend the extension of the suspension for more than two years. However, the letters at Annexures A18 and A19 clearly prove that the same is nothing but a ruse to keep her under prolonged suspension.
33. In addition to the above points, the applicant also submits that a perusal of Annexure A17 findings of the Suspension Review Committee in its meeting held on 17.08.2022, also reveal that the applicant who had been initially imposed with a liability of Rs.8,06,556/-, plus interest and penal interest has now after the Circle Level Investigation into the matter was completed, been apportioned with a loss to Rs.6,48,173, plus interest and penal interest. This is clear evidence that the initial quantification made by the respondents was not correct as was always maintained by her. Even out of this amount of Rs.6,48,173/-, plus interest and penal interest with effect from 01.07.2020, after reducing the money already paid by her, the amount that is now due has been calculated as Rs.5,99,800/-, plus interest and penal interest. Thus, it is submitted that there is absolutely no justification to keep extending her suspension citing the alleged pendency of investigation, especially so in a case which is currently pending trial. Even though there were many other officials working in the said Post Office, only the applicant has been discriminated against and is still placed under suspension citing non-existent reasons. The applicant thus prays in the M.A No.180/941/2022 filed before this Tribunal in this O.A for a direction on the respondents to permit her to rejoin duty at the earliest and to be given consequential benefits in the light of the above contentions.
34. We note that the above M.A was filed in November 2022 through the learned Counsel for the applicant and, after this, the respondents filed the M.A No.180/204/2023 to accept some documents which included, at the Annexure O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 36 M.A1, the Minutes of Review Committee dated 13.02.2022, referred to earlier. It was submitted in the M.A filed by the respondents that the O.A had been filed challenging the extension of suspension and for a direction for reinstatement. The main ground raised by the applicant at that time was that the extension order was not a speaking order. It is pointed out that only the Annexure A1 order dated 22.09.2021 was under challenge in the O.A and this relief has not been amended or changed even after later developments. It is also submitted by the respondents that after the applicant was initially placed under suspension, all the orders extending her suspension are done with proper reasons. Since these extensions had not been challenged in the OA, the same was not produced. It is submitted by the respondents that for a proper adjudication of the basic subject matter, it is essential that the minutes of the meeting of the Suspension Review Committee dated13.02.2023 be accepted as relevant in this case. Hence, they produced the minutes of the meeting of the Suspension Review Committee dated 13.02.2023 at Annexure M.A1 along with M.A 180/204/2023. As per the Annexure M.A1 Minutes, the Committee for Review of Suspension of the applicant, which had met on 13.02.2023, recommended her continued suspension with effect from 28.02.2023 to 26.08.2023. It is pointed out in the Minutes that this is the 6th review of the said Committee. The minutes state that it is agreed that the balance amount yet to be paid by the applicant after the Circle Level Investigation had re- quantified and reassessed the loss amount calculated earlier was Rs.5,99,800/-, plus interest and penal interest with effect from 01.07.2020. However, this amount is still pending to be credited by the applicant. The Minutes also reveal that the applicant had filed an application alleging bias against the Inquiry officer. The same had been disposed of by the memo dated 11.04.2022 O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 37 issued by the CPMG of the Kerala Circle. The applicant had filed another O.A No. 361/2022 before this Tribunal against the Memo. The Tribunal had initially stayed the disciplinary proceedings by its order dated 11.07.2022. Hence, drawing from these developments, the Committee has recorded in its Minutes at M.A1 that it is understood that the official is well aware that the offence committed by her was absolutely grave and that, therefore, she is determined to elongate the proceedings with malicious intentions.
35. The Suspension Review Committee has observed in the above Minutes that the offences committed by the applicant were grave in nature and that a Police case was filed at Pandalam Police Station. It is noted that an FIR is awaited from the Police Authorities. It is also noted in the Minutes that a Police case has been registered by some depositors at Elavumthitta Police station under FIR No.0223 dated 11.05.2019 and that the investigation is still under progress in that matter. The Review Committee has recorded that the official has not been co-operating in the Departmental proceedings and is also not making good her share of the apportionment of the Government loss amount. It is also observed that there are some chances of prejudicing the Police investigation by influencing depositors and witnesses and potential for tampering of records by the delinquent official. It is recorded that all the records of financial savings bank transactions are stored in the FINACLE software database by the Department. This is a secured network which can be accessed from the Post Offices only. It is recorded that there is a chance of unauthorized access to this secured network, even if the FINACLE ID of the official is deactivated once the official rejoins duty. Although there may be no direct impact on the general smooth functioning of the office, the co-workers will have to be extra vigilant. It is also recorded that there will be an O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 38 atmosphere of doubt as to whether the official will access unauthorised software. Hence, it is recorded in the Minutes that reinstating her would effectively allow her to influence and alter the witnesses and circumstances, and that, furthermore, it will be a clear message to all other staff to „comprehend‟ that such grave lapses and violation and non-observance of rules and procedures are of little importance. It is recorded in the Minutes that the fraud case was widely covered in print and visual media and the amount of fraud detected as per Circle Level Investigation was Rs.19,36,947/-. Public meetings had been held in Kulanada in this connection. The delay of departmental disciplinary proceedings is against the public interest and the depositors. Thus, the revocation of suspension of the official at this stage will tarnish the image of the Department.
36. We have attempted to consider all the above contentions and counter contentions in full detail notwithstanding our earlier observations in relation to the M.A No.180/437/2021 filed by the applicant. We are conscious that whatever be our opinions on the methods employed in the pleadings this Tribunal has to be absolutely fair and just to both sides while deciding the matter. At the outset, we note that the O.A No.361/2022 filed by this applicant has since been disposed of by this Tribunal on 09.03.2023. The direction, therein, was that whatever documents are available with the Disciplinary Authority shall be supplied to the applicant and that in the issue of the documents are not available, a non-availability certificate shall also be issued. It was seen that the respondents had initially refused to give some documents and had also rejected the bias petition submitted by applicant. This Tribunal confined its directions in O.A No.361/2022, noting that the learned SPC had undertaken that whatever documents were available with the Disciplinary O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 39 Authority shall be supplied to the applicant and that wherever documents were not available a non-availability certificate would be issued. Recording these submissions, the O.A had been disposed of and thus the interim order was vacated. Thus now means that there is no bar on the respondents to take steps to conduct the Inquiry against the applicant and also to complete it soon, considering that sufficient time has since elapsed after the charge sheet was issued. At the same time, after a careful consideration of all the developments, it is also clear to us that the applicant cannot also be absolved of some responsibilities in getting the matter delayed, in her own interest. However, we leave our observations on this at this stage and we will not go further into discussions on the causes and responsibilities for delay. We, therefore, will confine our directions to the respondents and the applicant to jointly ensure that the Inquiry is completed as expeditiously as possible by working together sincerely.
37. Thus after full considerations, we direct the competent authority among the respondents to take all necessary steps to direct the Inquiry officer to complete the Inquiry against the applicant within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. The competent authority may pass the final orders in this matter, after consideration of the findings of the Inquiry officer within a period of two months of receipt of the Inquiry Report. Further, it is made also clear that the applicant should not impede the inquiry in any way, either by serially asking for various documents or taking excuses in relation to attendance in the inquiry or by any other measure. Further, in relation to the continued suspension of the applicant, we find that the reasons given by the respondents are generally overall acceptable and are not in broad conflict with the general O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 40 instructions or legal precedents in this regard. However, any continued suspension beyond the period indicated by our directions above is not acceptable.
38. As regards the legal precedents, there are citations brought to our notice from both sides. Learned Counsel for the applicant cited J. K. Varshneya vs Union of India and ors in O.A No.228 of 1988 decided on 18.07.1988, wherein, the Principal Bench of this Tribunal had observed that though suspension in itself is not a form of penalty, it constitutes a great hardship to an affected servant in that, apart from not being allowed to perform legitimate duties and earn salary, he is paid at reduced rate during the period and it causes lasting damage to his reputation. Further, in Kamal Kishore Prasad v Union of India and another in O.A 2260 of 1988 dated 10.11.1989, the Principal Bench passed orders that there was no justification in continuing the suspension and that revocation of suspension and reinstatement would not in any manner prejudice the investigations which admittedly have come to an end. Learned Counsel also drew attention to the observations in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), which have already been brought out earlier. Learned Senior Panel Counsel on the other hand brought to notice, State of Orissa through its Principal Secretary, Home Dept v Bimal Kumar Mohanty [(1994) 4 SCC 126] wherein it has been clarified that suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority should also keep in mind public interest of the impact of delinquent‟s continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge. It was held that the Courts and Tribunals must consider each case on its own facts and no general law can be laid down in this behalf. It was observed that suspension is to refrain the employee from availing further O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 41 opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry etc.
39. Drawing from the above we observe that cases can be produced on both sides to justify their positions. Suffice it to say we only note that the said suspension in this case has been continued for close to a period of 3 years without any sign of finalisation of the departmental action that had been ordered. This is indeed a fairly long period of time and thus our directions given earlier in paragraph 37 to complete all remaining aspects within the next few months should put a seal of finality to the matter. As we had stated we are not entering into the questions of the responsibilities for the delay as this is not helpful in settling the issue. We only observe that there have been lapses on both sides. Further, in regard to the issue of the enhancement of the subsistence allowance, our interim orders had been passed earlier. We had clearly stated that it is up to the respondents to take a considered decision in the facts and circumstances of the case taking into account the provisions under FR 53 and other executive instructions. The respondents have accordingly passed the order, which had been produced along with the CP at Annexure P3 dated 25.10.2021, wherein, they decided that the amount of subsistence allowance sanctioned vide the memo dated 13.06.2020 would be the same. We note that this decision had been taken O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 42 by the respondents after due consideration and thus we do not pass any further directions in this regard.
40. Thus, to reiterate, this O.A is disposed of with the direction in relation to the completion of the inquiry within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as well as to issue appropriate final orders thereof within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the Inquiry Report. No further directions are considered necessary by us in this matter. All issues raised in any pending M.As filed for directions, etc., in the O.A will all come to an end with these orders. Accordingly, all pending M.As listed are also closed.
O.A 417/2020: -
41. We now take up the issues listed in O.A 417/2020. We note that this O.A had been filed by the applicant requesting for a direction on the respondents to conduct a proper inquiry into the lapses committed by various officials including other Postal Assistants and other supervisory officers in the Kulanada fraud case and to fix their liability through an inquiry in proportion to lapses committed by these officials, as per the guidelines laid down in Annexure A5 and Annexure A8. There was also a prayer to direct the respondents to complete the inquiry proceedings initiated against the applicant by Annexure A9 order, before resorting to any proceedings for recovery of loss. It was also sought to quash Annexure A2 order by which a recovery of Rs.4,60,509/- was sought from the applicant, to quash Annexure A12 which sought recovery of Rs.7,64,944/-, and also to quash the quantification report dated 23.07.2020 produced at Annexure A13. As was noted in our earlier exposition and analysis of the facts and circumstances, the orders at Annexures A2 and A12 have since been reviewed by the respondents. It now O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 43 appears that, on the basis of the Circle Level Inquiry, that the liability on the applicant has been refixed at Rs.6,48,173/-, which, after adjustment from the amount already paid leaves Rs.5,99,800/- towards the share of liability. The reply statement of the respondents in this O.A, when it was filed on 28.01.2021, had repeated the justification for the demand for recovery of Rs.7,64,944/-, by citing that (as per the Annexure R1 details) the share of quantification of the applicant varied from nil to 33% in various cases. It was also submitted by the respondents that they had full power to recover the loss in loss and fraud cases as per Annexure R3 and also as per the other documents furnished in the O.A, like the instructions issued by the Department of Post and the Postal Manual at Annexures A5 to A8.
42. The applicant had filed M.A No.180/161/2021 in this OA for a direction to the respondents to produce the inspection report of Kulanada SO for the year 2018. This report was produced by the respondents through a Memo filed in February 2022. In view of the other developments, as brought out in our discussions in O.A 234/2021, the applicant then filed M.A No.180/62/2023 praying for a direction to the respondents to permit the applicant to remit only an amount of Rs.2,57,124/- worked out by her in her letter to the respondents at Annexure A21. This amount had been worked out by her in her application at Annexure A21 as her share and she had requested the respondents that she be allowed to pay the same as instalments/as deduction from salary, subject to the outcome of the original application. She submitted that after the respondents had worked out the credit due from her of Rs.5,99,800/- vide their letter produced at Annexure A20 on completion of Circle Level Investigation, it was clear that the contentions that she had earlier raised about the errors in the imposition of liability had been found correct. She maintained that the O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 44 liability imposed in the Annexure 12 letter to the applicant of Rs.7,64,944/- and in the Annexure A20 letter asking her to pay Rs.5,99,800/- had included three cases of issuance of fake passbooks which had contributed to the fraud. Her contention is that it had been proved during the inquiry that the passbooks were not belonging to the Kulanada SO and, as such, she cannot be held responsible for the same. She, therefore, requested that the loss caused from these cases of fake passbooks be exempted. She only accepted responsibility in relation basically to supervisory lapses in all other cases relating to the RD. She, thus, expressed her willingness as per Annexure A21 to only credit the remaining amount of Rs.2,57,124/-.
43. In addition to this, the applicant stated in Annexure A21 that she was willing to pay this apportionment of the loss in instalments. Alternatively, it can be deducted from her pay and allowances consequent to voluntary consent. In any event, she asked that the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against her father and grandmother by the Department of Posts be withdrawn. It is to be noted that this letter of the applicant dated 08.08.2022 at Annexure A21 was then replied to by Annexure A22 letter by the respondents. A copy of the Circle Level Investigation report, along with revised quantification, was given to her by the respondents with the Annexure A22 letter. It was mentioned in the Annexure A22 letter that the revised quantification case of 1 year Term Deposit for Rs.1,00,000/- that had been mentioned in her representation under reference had already been excluded. However, two other cases (KVP & MIS) were included. On reviewing these cases it was seen that the revised quantification, as per the Circle Level Investigation was justified. Thus she was again asked to credit the balance amount of Rs.5,99,800/- by UCR.
O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 45
44. The applicant countered these contentions at Annexure A22 by her letter at Annexure A23 dated 05.09.2022 produced in M.A 180/62/2023. She reiterated in this letter that the fake passbooks and original passbooks belonged to two batches of printing. The fake passbooks used were not from the stock of Kulanada SO. She had informed this to the ASP Pathanamthitta when the inquiry was being conducted by him. Further, it was also not her duty but the duty of Smt. Sindhu K. Nair, PA to maintain Passbook, Stock Register, etc. In addition, she reiterated that the officials were compelled to share passwords because of the shortage of staff within the office. It was stated that none of the inspecting officers who had carried out the annual inspection of Kulanada SO had objected to the P.A maintaining the stock book of passbooks. The applicant further questioned the quantification statement annexed to the Circle Level Investigation Report. Her repeated contention, as was also seen earlier, is that the fraud had been committed by the MPKBY agent Smt. Ambily G Nair who later committed suicide. Thus, any responsibility for the recoupment of the defrauded amount rests with that agent and her legal heirs. On the other hand the competent authority had allotted only 25% of the share of the loss on the agent and the due from the agent was worked out to only Rs.5 lakhs. It is submitted that in other cases revenue recovery has been started against the agents legal heirs for attachment.
45. Since there was no response to the above letter dated 05.09.2022, produced at Annexure A23, the Applicant sent yet another representation dated 13.09.2022, produced at Annexure A24, to the 3rd respondent, pointing out the relevant provisions of the Saving Bank Act 1873 had provided that the Post Office Savings Bank will not be responsible to a depositor for any O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 46 fraudulent withdrawal by a person obtaining possession of the Passbook or a Cheque from the Cheque Book of a depositor. Hence on this ground too the applicant sought to establish that she is not liable for any interest or penal interest of fraud. These representations were then replied to by the respondents vide their letter at Annexure A25 dated 17.10.2022, wherein, it was reiterated that in each case, the total loss amount has to be shared among all related offenders. The applicant‟s share for 27 irregular withdrawal/closure cases and for two Passbook lost cases was quantified to Rs.6,48,173/-, which included interest and penal interest upto 30.06.2020. She had credited Rs.48,373/- under UCR and thus the balance amount of Rs.5,99,800/- is to be credited by her. In other words, they rejected all the contentions of the applicant and stick to their earlier position.
46. We examined these contentions in relation to the recovery ordered on the applicant. In this connection, at the outset, we observe that the contention made by the applicant in her Annexure A24 letter, about the provision that the Post Office Savings Bank shall not be responsible for fraudulent withdrawal by a person by obtaining the Pass Book or a Cheque from the Chequebook of a depositor are to be taken to be of a general nature. While this may be the strict legal position, in the actual conditions which are prevailing in village/rural areas there is a lot of trust placed on the Post Office and its employees by the depositors. Hence, when agents or the employees of Postal Department are entrusted with Passbooks/Cheques by depositors it is on account of trust placed on them as Government employees/representatives. The legitimate expectation is that he or she (the employee/representative) will take care of the depositors‟ interest and will not mishandle the money as happened in this case. Whatever be the situation we safely observe that there O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 47 at the very least appears to be some supervisory lapses on the part of various employees in this matter. In fact the respondents have gone one step further as they allege that the applicant is one of the Principal Offenders in the case as evidenced by the facts that her Finnacle ID was being used not only to allow the withdrawal of the depositors‟ money, but also to subsequently approve the same as a supervisor. On the face of the details provided, it clearly is established that frauds were committed and there were lapses. Only the Inquiry ordered and findings thereon can establish these charges one way or the other.
47. Further, the applicant has blamed Smt. Sindhu K. Nair PA and the MPKBY agent late Smt. Ambili G Nair for the entire fraud along with some other PAs. One plea that she has taken is that being located away from them in a different room, she was not aware of what was going on. There was also shortage of staff which had compelled her to share her Finnacle ID and Password, in the interest of timely and efficient service. She claims that she was not in charge of maintenance of Passbooks or even responsible for the fraudulent use of the office stamp for any authentication that was done during the day time. Anyway, after making all these justifications, she still submits in documents produced in M.A 180/62/2023 that she is willing to credit an amount of Rs.2,57,124/- to the authorities. This, in other words, actually implies that she has accepted share of some responsibility for the fraud in the RD accounts. In such circumstances and eventualities, it is not possible to pass any order at this stage restricting the respondents from taking steps for the recovery of Rs.5,99,800/-, that they had, in turn, calculated as owed by her as her share. It is observed that the respondents had revised the amount of O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 48 recovery due from the applicant after conducting more detailed investigations and after greater scrutiny.
48. Overall, therefore, after due consideration, we do not find sufficient ground in all the available facts and circumstances taken together to order that the said recovery be stopped till the completion of the inquiry proceedings. We are also guided by the fact that there does not seem to be any bar, as per the Rules or even as per the Circulars, for the said recovery to be done. It appears that the same has been ordered after a detailed Circle Level Inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry/Disciplinary proceedings drawn up against the applicant are on different charges in relation to supervision over the office, etc., and from the charges formulated therein, it is clear that irregular acts are being alleged to have been done resulting in loss of money to the department. Those charges are being inquired into separately from the recovery, which has been ordered on the basis of the detailed Circle Level Investigation done by the authorities.
49. We do not therefore allow this O.A as prayed for. In the circumstances, the M.A No.180/62/2023 for direction to the respondents to permit applicant to remit the amount of Rs.2,57,124 only as deduction from salary cannot be allowed. Any other pending M.As in this O.A are also closed.
O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 49
50. The O.A No.180/417/2020 is accordingly dismissed. No order is made as to costs.
(Dated this the 18th day of May, 2023)
(K. V. Eapen) (Justice K. Haripal)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
bp
O.A No.180/234/2021
and connected cases
50
List of Annexures
Original Application No.180/00234/2021
Annexure A1- A true copy of the Order No. F4/1/2019-20 dated 03.03.2021 issued
by the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A2- A true copy of the complaint dated 03.04.2019 along with its
translation submitted by the husband of the MPKBY agent Ambily to the 3rd respondent along with the acknowledgement.
Annexure A3- A true copy of the relevant pagers of the letter No. B/21/ ROT/ TFR/2019 dated 15.05.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent. Annexure A4- A true copy of the memo No. F4/1/2019-20 dated 26.06.2019 issued rd by the 3 respondent to the applicant.
Annexure A5- A true copy of the representation dated 04.07.2019 submitted by the applicant before the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A6- A true copy of the Memo No. B2/Posting dated 15.11.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A7- A true copy of the order No. F4/1/2019-20 dated 13.06.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent to the applicant.
Annexure A8- A true copy of the Memo No. F4/1/2019-20 dated 14.07.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent to the applicant.
Annexure A9- A true copy of the proceedings issued as per No. VIG/1-17/ RVW/2020 dated 03.09.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent. Annexure A10- A true copy of the order No. F4/1/2019-20 dated 03.09.2020 issued rd by the 3 respondent to the applicant.
Annexure A11- A true copy of the representation dated 11.09.2020 submitted by the rd applicant to the 3 respondent.
Annexure A12- A true copy of the order No. F4/1/2-19-20 dated 28.09.2020 issued rd by the 3 respondent to the applicant.
Annexure A13- A true copy of the O.M No. 11012/17/2013-Estt (A) dated 02.01.2014 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Pensions and Public Grievances. Annexure A14- A true copy of the proceedings of the Suspension Review Committee issued as per letter No. VIG/1-17/RVW/2020 dated 23.02.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A15- A true copy of the complaint dated 04.04.2019 submitted by husband of late Ambily G. Nair to Sub Inspector, Elavumthitta Police Station along with its translation.
Annexure A16- A true copy of the Order No. No. VIG/VCR/2/2017 dated 16.08.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent.
Annexure MA1- A true copy of the Minutes of the Suspension Review Committee issued as per letter No. VIG/1-17/RVW/2020 dated 18.02.2022. Annexure MA2- A true copy of the representation dated 11.06.2022 submitted by the applicant before the 2nd respondent without enclosures. Annexure MA3- A true copy of the Letter No. VIG/1-17/RVW/2020 dated 16.08.2022 issued on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A16- A true copy of the Memo No. F4/1/2019-20 dated 22.08.2022 issued rd by the 3 respondent.
Annexure A17- A true copy of the Minutes of the Suspension Review Committee on 17.08.2022 issued on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A18- A true copy of the letter No. 192/GL/2021-PDLM dated 23.10.2021 submitted by the Station House Officer, Pandalam to the Deputy Superintendent of Police along with its translation.
Annexure A19- A true copy of the Letter No. Nil dated 18.12.2021 submitted by the Inspector, Pandalam Police Station to the District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta along with its translation.
Annexure R1- True copy of the letter No. ASP/Rule-14/SDK dated at Thiruvananthapuram dated 12.05.2021.
Annexure R2- True copy of the letter No. F4/1/2019-20 at Pathanamthitta dated 14.05.2021.
Annexure R3- True copy of the Finacle reports showing that the applicant has shared her Finacle counter ID to SmtSindhu K. Nair.
O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 51 Annexure R4- True copy of the quantification of loss amount apportioned to the applicant.
Annexure R5- True copy of the extract of Sub Rule 6 of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules.
Annexure R6- True copy of the Postal Directorate letter No. 4-66/TN- 16/2009-Inv dated 19.03.2015.
Annexure R7- The details of quantification of loss apportioned to the applicant. Annexure R8- True copy of the report No. 209/2020 dated 18.06.2020 of the village Officer, Pandalam, Thekkekkara Village.
Annexure R29- True copy of form No. 3.
Annexure R1- True copy of request dated 22.04.2021.
Annexure R2- True copy of request dated 22.05.2021.
Annexure MA1- True copy of the Minutes of Review Committee dated 13.02.2022.
C.P(C) No.180/25/2021
Annexure P1- A true copy of the interim order dated 23.09.2021 in O.A
No.234/2021 of this Tribunal.
Annexure P2- A true copy of the letter dated 27.09.2021 submitted by the Petitioner
before the respondent herein without enclosures.
Annexure P3- A true copy of the Memo No.CAT/180/243/21 dated 25.10.2021
issued by the respondent herein.
Annexure R1- True copy of request dated 22.04.2021.
Annexure R2- True copy of request dated 22.05.2021.
Original Application No.180/00417/2020
Annexure A1- A true copy of the complaint dated 03.04.2019 along with its
translation submitted by the husband of the MPKBY agent Ambily to the 3rd respondent along with the acknowledgment.
Annexure A2- A true copy of the Memo No.F4/1/2019-20 dated 26.06.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent to the applicant.
Annexure A3- A true copy of the Memo No.F4/1/2019-20 dated 03.07.2019 issued rd by the 3 respondent to the applicant.
Annexure A4- A true copy of the representation dated 04.07.2019 submitted by the applicant before the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A5- A true copy of the instruction issued as per Memo No.C- 32016/07/2006-VP dated 14.11.2006 issued by the Department of Posts. Annexure A6- A true copy of the relevant pages of the Postal Manual, Vol. III. Annexure A7- A true copy of Memo No.8-3/2003-Inv dated 25.02.2003 issued by the Department of Posts.
Annexure A8- A true copy of the Memo No.4-66/TN-16/2009-Inv dated 19.03.2015 issued by the Department of Posts.
Annexure A9- A true copy of the order No.F4/1/2019-20 dated 13.06.2020 issued rd by the 3 respondent.
Annexure A10- A true copy of the representation dated 22.06.2020 submitted by the applicant before the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A11- A true copy of the letter dated 24.06.2020 submitted by the applicant rd to the 3 respondent.
Annexure A12- A true copy of the Memo No.F4/1/2019-20 dated 14.07.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent to the applicant.
Annexure A13- A true copy of the Memo No.F4/1/2019-20 dated 23.07.2020 along with the quantification report issued by the 3rd respondent to the applicant. Annexure A14- A true copy of the representation dated 14.08.2020 submitted by the rd Applicant before the 3 respondent without Annexures.
O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases 52 Annexure A15- A true copy of the Requisition form dated 13.03.2019 issued by the Block Panchayat, Pambady.
Annexure A16- A true copy of the order dated 01.01.2020 in O.A No.563/2019 of this Tribunal.
Annexure A17- A true copy of the RTI Application dated 03.10.2020 submitted by the applicant before the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A18- A true copy of the RTI Reply No.CCC/RTI/174/2020 dated 28.10.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A19- A true copy of the Order No.INV/RTI Appeal/9/2020 dated 04.01.2021 issued by the Director of Postal Services (HQ) to the applicant. Annexure A20- A true copy of the Letter No.F4/1/2019-20 dated 21.07.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent to the applicant.
Annexure A21- A true copy of the letter dated 08.08.2022 submitted by the applicant rd to the 3 respondent.
Annexure A22- A true copy of the letter No.F4/1/2019-20 dated 17.08.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent without enclosures.
Annexure A23- A true copy of the representation dated 05.09.2022 submitted by the rd applicant to the 3 respondent.
Annexure A24- A true copy of the representation dated 13.09.2022 submitted by the applicant to the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A25- A true copy of the letter No.F4/1/2019-20 dated 17.10.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent to this applicant.
Annexure R1- True copy of Rule details of apportion of total loss amount. Annexure R2- Copy of the Directorate letter No.25-11/2016-FS-CBS dated 21.06.2016 (SB Order No.5/2016) Annexure R3- True copy of letters No.4-66/TN-16/2009-Inv dated 19.03.2015. Annexure R4- True copy of Rule 113(iii), Rule 33(1), Rule 33(2), Rule 33(5), Rule 36 & Rule 37 read with Note 1 below Rule 93 of Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume I (second edition).
Annexure R5- True copy of Finacle Transaction reports showing Smt. Santhini Devi K performed both the duties of Counter Assistant (PA) and Sub Postmaster (Supervisor) Annexure R6- Copy of relevant portion of the inspection report of 2015.
***** O.A No.180/234/2021 and connected cases